Here's another pretty interesting/sobering perspective on the labor market and job competition in the academic sciences: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/
Having gone to a large research university as an undergrad, I always wondered how there could possibly be enough jobs at the end of the pipeline for PhDs when the ratio of grad students to profs was at least 6 to 1, not to mention the shorter duration of student positions compared to faculty positions. What is the solution to this? Fewer grad students? More science funding? More faculty or tenured positions? More positions for scientists outside the academy? I also wonder to what degree this situation is similar across all scientific fields, or if the problems in particular areas like ecology are different/better/worse. Just off hand, I would suspect the competition for academic jobs to be worse in ecology as there are not many industry jobs available, unlike in fields related to biomedicine, engineering, or computer technology. Do government/non-profit jobs make up for this? One final question: Does the increased competition/work load/productivity of today's scientists mean that today's scientists are better? And does it mean that todays science is better? I'd love to hear from others further along in their career. Dunbar
